Posted on 08/29/2023 9:29:11 AM PDT by Alter Kaker
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office has repeatedly grilled witnesses about Rudy Giuliani’s drinking on and after election day, investigating whether Donald Trump was knowingly relying on an inebriated attorney while trying to overturn a presidential election.
In their questioning of multiple witnesses, Smith’s team of federal investigators have asked questions about how seemingly intoxicated Giuliani was during the weeks he was giving Trump advice on how to cling to power, according to a source who’s been in the room with Smith’s team, one witness’s attorney, and a third person familiar with the matter.
The special counsel’s team has also asked these witnesses if Trump had ever gossiped with them about Giuliani’s drinking habits, and if Trump had ever claimed Giuliani’s drinking impacted his decision making or judgment. Federal investigators have inquired about whether the then-president was warned, including after Election Night 2020, about Giuliani’s allegedly excessive drinking. They have also asked certain witnesses if Trump was told that the former New York mayor was giving him post-election legal and strategic advice while inebriated.
(Excerpt) Read more at rollingstone.com ...
ROFL!! I don’t think I’ve ever seen that before. Thanks for sharing. Sadly, the guys that made up Monty Python would never be able to get away with their skits, lyrics, and jokes today.
But he had "gravitas."
What does drinking have to do with politics? Many of our politicians have whiskey faces especially big red noses.
JACKASS SMITH IS PURE EVIL.
Multi-tasking, Biden’s booze czar wants all non party members to limit drinking. Reminds me of Brezhnev.
Caller slams Rolling Stone https://www.bitchute.com/video/rDZ5TxKfk3Jq/
Jack Smith himself is smoking some pretty heavy stuff....prove me otherwise...
Drinking while lawyering is not against the law. 😏
Yep.
Jack Smith’s handling of this case resembles disbarred and convicted criminal, then-DA Mike Nifong, in the phonied up Duke lacrosse players rape case.
One Republican Representative was so outraged he sent a letter to then-U.S.A.G. Alberto Gonzales asking for an investigation into whether Nifong committed “prosecutorial misconduct” and whether he violated the civil rights of the suspects in the case.
Critics noted that police were instructed to “Go through Mr. Nifong for any directions as to how to conduct matters in this case”.......an unusual move for a prosecutor to order.
On December 16, 2006, it was revealed that Nifong conspired to withhold exculpatory DNA evidence from the final report submitted to the defense team.
The prosecution of the case was criticized by the legal analyst for the National Journal, as well as New York Times columnists David Brooks and Nicholas Kristof.
An investigation by CBS’ 60 Minutes “revealed disturbing facts about the conduct of the police and the district attorney, and raised serious concerns.” (This 60 Minutes segment was honored with a Peabody Award on April 4, 2007.)
Several writers at Slate criticized the prosecution’s actions and especially criticized the mainstream media for accepting prosecution claims at face value in spite of countervailing evidence.
In light of the fact that Nifong failed to turn over exculpatory evidence to defense lawyers, The News & Observer wrote that “District Attorney Mike Nifong must rely on scanty evidence while deflecting serious questions about whether he broke the law or violated the ethics rules governing prosecutors.”
Thomas Sowell accused Nifong of using the case to improve his chances in the next election by exploiting identity groups to gain votes.
A federal judge in 2011 ruled that the civil lawsuit could proceed against Nifong, including claims of “malicious prosecution” and “fabrication of false evidence.”
Defense lawyers were strongly critical of Nifong’s handling of the case. As the details of the case emerged, Nifong was said to have made a series of accusations that later turned out to be untrue;
<><>that he exaggerated and intensified racial tensions;
<><>that he unduly influenced the Durham police investigation;
<><>that he tried to manipulate potential witnesses;
<><>that he refused to hear exculpatory evidence before indictment;
<><>that regulations on the conduct of an identification exercise were breached
<><>that he had never spoken directly to the alleged victim about the accusations;
<><>and that he made misleading presentations of various aspects of the evidence in the case.
He was eventually disbarred and even spent time in jail.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.